|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 10/08/2003 7:39:50 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
“Put this page up on a wall, pick up a dart, and take your best shot.” Those are the words of Steve Mahowald, a writer of Catholic News and Commentary who published his article in the September/October 2003 issue. Why the gauntlet from Mr. Mahowald? Because he believes after one short interview he had with a Dr. Frederick Zugibe, an interview in which the doctor reports that, in his recent discussion with Sister Lucia, the famed Fatima seer concluded concerning the consecration requested by Our Lady as far back as 1929: “It was done. The Holy Father [John Paul II] willed it. It was done and you can tell your friends it was done.” Steve is so convinced after the interview with Zugibe that he is now calling into question the entire Traditional Movement, since, as he claims,
...If the consecration has been done, where does that leave the Traditional Movement...Let’s face it, in all honesty, there really has been very little unity in what is called the Traditional Movement...They do appear to hold in common, as if it mattered at all to their “unity,” the belief that the consecration of Russia has not been accomplished. Without this single strand of agreement, little remains – except, of course, the commitment of all of these groups to the Latin Mass...If, as Sr. Lucia claims, the consecration has been accomplished, the magic bullet has been spent. (CN&C, p. 10) With all due respect to Mr. Mahowald, apparently he got into the Traditional Movement for all the wrong reasons. Whether or not he is an apparition buff whose Fatima-bubble has been burst and is feeling the pain of disappointment, I don’t know. But if he thinks one apparition is the fulcrum upon which the Traditional Movement rests, he is clueless as to its meaning and value for today. Even if the consecration was performed, it makes little difference to the sad state of affairs in the post-conciliar Church about which the Traditional Movement has been complaining the last 40 plus years. The only thing a completed consecration would force us to conclude is how badly the present Church has abused its prophesied fruits. The Church is in a virtual meltdown, yet because of claims in just one interview – an interview, no less, which Mr. Mahowald has no way of proving accurate, or even authentic – is ready to jump ship and call into question the very movement that restored his Catholic dignity. Not only that, but his above words have an undercurrent of disdain. Even his use of the pronouns “they” and “them” shows that he has already distanced himself from the movement.
As for Mr. Mahowald’s claims of “disunity” in the Traditional Movement, I can safely say that after being on both sides of this fence, I see very little disunity. Consider that The Remnant, Catholic Family News, The Latin Mass and Fatima Crusader (the four most read traditionalists periodicals in the world) all share writers and speakers, as well as great friendships among themselves. Add to that the literature coming from such sources as The Angelus, Christian Order, Apropos, AFS, and Catholic, all of whom are on great terms with the aforementioned editors and writers. Popular quality websites, such as the SeattleCatholic and Diocese Report, post articles from most of the above groups and are in frequent personal contact with their editors and writers, round out the field. These groups, and many others, provide a united front against the modernists and liberals reigning in the post-conciliar Church today. I have never felt so close to like-minded Catholics in all my life. (It’s far different than what I experienced among the EWTN crowd, where everyone downplayed or even ignored today’s apostasy and forced themselves to maintain a “positive message,” which, of course, allowed them to reap exorbitant salaries and speaking fees). Perhaps because other ultra-traditional groups have differing opinions on the degree to which they will react against the post-conciliar Church’s antics and aberrant teachings, and thus sometimes disagree with one another on just how much apostasy has actually taken place, Mr. Mahowald translates such differing levels of reaction as “disunity,” and a major reason to reject the whole movement. Unfortunately, he doesn’t know how good he has had it, considering the no-holds-barred assault Satan has perpetrated on the Church today. I hope Steve comes to his senses. As it stands now, anyone working with his kind of emotionalism and distorted logic is really in for a disappointment, but it won’t be from the Traditional Movement.
The Interview with Dr. Zugibe:
As soon as Dr. Zugibe’s interview was made public, several people hurried off emails to get my reaction. Having written a 100-page paper calling into question the validity of the Vatican’s claims that the consecration of Russia was performed in 1984 (which is posted on our website at www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/fatima.asp), naturally some are curious what we will do with this so-called “new evidence” unearthed by Dr. Zugibe.
Let me say this at the outset. I don’t know Dr. Zugibe nor do I know Steve Mahowald or even Sister Lucia. I cannot vouch for their honesty or sincerity. I am willing to give them the fairest opportunity to defend what they claim. I do not even buy into the popular theory that the Sister Lucia who gave the interview, or similar previous interviews, is an imposter. (I don’t think the Vatican prelates controlling this affair would be that stupid. Exposure is too high a risk). What I do know, however, is that the information contained in Steve Mahowald’s interview with Dr. Zugibe is full of holes. In fact, it is so unconvincing that I found myself shaking my head in amazement at what the devil will try next to convince the world that all is well, and that the Church is in fine shape. Walk with me, will you, through this interview, and allow me to show you the fantasy land that somehow made Steve shake in his boots.
Hole #1: On page 3 of the article, Dr. Zugibe is quoted as saying:
Then I went ahead, at that particular time, and I said, “I don’t know if it’s off-limits here, but I’ve been hearing a lot of different rumors and a lot of different ideas – I’d like to know about this. Sister, I’d like to ask you a question. Was the consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary done? I heard it wasn’t done – that it wasn’t done right and so forth. That she [Sr. Lucia] had indicated that it was not done.”
Sr. Lucia looked both me and my wife right in the eye, and she said, “It was done! The Holy Father willed it. It was done, and you can tell your friends that it was done.” Let’s take this apart, line-by-line. First, Dr. Zugibe refers to “a lot of different rumors and a lot of different ideas,” as if all these so-called “rumors” have been circulating without Sister Lucia’s knowledge or involvement. Dr. Zugibe acts as if Fatima enthusiasts have been busy all these years making up evidence that the consecration of Russia has not been completed, and that Sister Lucia’s previous testimony had nothing to do with the information contained in the purported “rumors.” The fact is that Sister Lucia has been asked several times prior to Dr. Zugibe’s 2002 interview whether or not the consecration has been done, and in every case, at least prior to late 1989, Sister Lucia has DENIED it has been done, without question.
Quoting from my essay, Sister Lucia’s previous acknowledgments are the following:
First, on March 19, 1983, she [Sr. Lucia] stated to the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Sante Portalupi: “The consecration of Russia has not been made as Our Lady has determined.” At this meeting, she then set forth the requirements to accomplish the consecration of Russia: (1) Russia must be clearly indicated as the object of the consecration; (2) each bishop must make a public and solemn ceremony in his own church simultaneous with the Pope. These requirements are clearly listed in the text of the Second Secret. Second, in an interview which appeared in Sol de Fatima (September 1985), Sister Lucia was asked if the Pope fulfilled the request made by Our Lady at Tuy, Spain, when he consecrated the world on March 25, 1984. Sister Lucia answered: “There was no participation of all the bishops, and there was no mention of Russia.” The interviewer then asked, “So the consecration was not done as requested by Our Lady?” Sister Lucia answered: “No. Many bishops attached no importance to this act.” [This coincides with the previous statement cited from John Paul II that he did not consecrate Russia though he “tried to do everything possible in the concrete circumstances”].
On March 22, 1984, Sister Lucia was celebrating her seventy-seventh birthday at the Carmel of Coimbra. Her long-time friend, Eugenia Pestana, visited her, as was her annual custom. Eugenia asked her: “Lucia, Sunday is the Consecration?” referring to the March 25 date. Having already read the text of the Pope’s speech, Sister Lucia answered: “That consecration cannot have a decisive character because Russia does not appear in it as the sole object of consecration.”
During this time, Cardinal Gagnon, in an interview with Fr. Caillon, states that the consecration of Russia has not been accomplished. In 1986, Maria do Fetal, cousin to Sister Lucia, publicly quotes Sister Lucia as saying that the consecration of Russia has not been performed. But similar to Fr. Coelho’s reversal (previously cited), Maria will also mysteriously change her mind in 1989. In addition, in 1988, Cardinal Gagnon will castigate Fr. Nicholas Gruner for publishing his remarks in the Fatima Crusader, claiming they were not meant for publication.
Third, after interviewing Sister Lucia outside her convent, Enrico Romero publishes the contents on July 20, 1987. He reports that Sister Lucia again stated that the consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima had not been accomplished. This is followed on October 25, 1987 with an acknowledgment by Cardinal Mayer, in front of an audience of a dozen Catholic leaders, that the consecration of Russia had not been accomplished.
Fourth, prior to July 1989, Cardinal Law of Boston is reported to have visited Sister Lucia to ask her about the consecration of Russia. Sister Lucia remarked: “Has it been done on the narrow road of collegial consecration that Our Lady demanded and has been wanting? No, that has not been done.”
In July 1989, the screws begin to tighten. Sister Lucia is given explicit instructions from unidentified Vatican operatives ordering her to say that the consecration of Russia was accomplished in the March 25, 1984 ceremony. [As noted, in that particular consecration the Pope neither singled out Russia for consecration, nor did the world’s bishops simultaneously participate in the consecration]. After achieving her silence, Archbishop Bertone then produces a four-page, typewritten statement, purportedly typed and signed by Sister Lucia herself on November 8, 1989, that the consecration of Russia had been accomplished. In the Vatican announcement Bertone states:
"On 25 March 1984, in St. Peter’s Square, while recalling the fiat uttered by Mary at the Annunciation, the Holy Father, in spiritual union with the bishops of the world, who had been convoked beforehand, entrusted all men and women and all peoples to the Immaculate Heart of Mary."
He adds that the words of consecration included:
"...this human world of ours...we entrust and consecrate to you, for we are full of concern for the earthly and eternal destiny of individuals and peoples. In a special way we entrust and consecrate to you those individuals and nations which particularly need to be thus entrusted and consecrated."
"Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished. Hence any further discussion or request is without basis." (Archbishop Bertone stated that the words of Sr. Lucia, in her letter of November 8, 1989, were, in Portuguese: “Sim, esta feit a, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Marco de 1984,” which translates to: “Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984.”)
Many point out, however, that Sister Lucia has never stated, privately or publicly, that she composed the statement, let alone signed it. She has never been known to type a letter, since all her correspondence thus far has been from her own handwriting. Her own blood-sister, Carolina, indicates that Sister Lucia does not even know how to type. And certainly, an admission by Sister Lucia that the March 25, 1984 consecration satisfied Our Lady’s request would completely contradict every statement she has made on the requirements for the consecration over the previous sixty years, including her five denials of 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1989, respectively.
Considering all this evidence, why didn’t Dr. Zugibe bring any of these previous interviews to Sister Lucia’s attention if he was so concerned about the “rumors” that had been circulating? If Dr. Zugibe is the expert examiner of evidence he is purported to be (considering his recent thrashing of Dr. Pierre Barbet’s theory of how Jesus died on the cross, which is the basis upon which he was invited to Sister Lucia’s convent in the first place), wouldn’t the first logical question an expert investigator would want to know is why Sister Lucia now appears to be saying something totally opposite than what she said in previous years? Without that crucial question being asked, the whole interview with Sister Lucia is suspect of irrelevancy and misdirection. Make no mistake about it. Because of Dr. Zugibe’s interview, the person now on trial here is Sister Lucia. He has put her in that unfortunate position. As such, her testimony needs to be scrutinized. Her present testimony cannot be accepted at face value if she gives no accompanying explanation as to the obvious discrepancy it creates with her previous testimony. All Sister Lucia needs to do is deny the previous testimony or explain it. If she doesn’t, completely and convincingly, then Sister Lucia, I’m sorry to say, becomes and remains an impeachable witness.
Hole #2: You will notice that there is a major discrepancy between what Mahowald quotes from the website of Michael Brown at spiritdaily.org, and what appears in Mahowald’s article in CN&C regarding precisely what Dr. Zugibe asked Sister Lucia. In the spiritdaily.org quote that Mahowald reveals, it reads:
I [Dr. Zugibe] said, “Sister Lucia, I want to ask you one question directly: was Russia consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary or not, because there is all this controversy about that.” She said in these words, “It was done. The Holy Father did it. It was done and you can tell your friends it was done.” The version that Mahowald quotes directly from Dr. Zugibe, however, says the following:
Sister, I’d like to ask you a question. Was the consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary done? I heard it wasn’t done – that it wasn’t done right and so forth. That she [Sr. Lucia] had indicated that it was not done.” Sr. Lucia looked both me and my wife right in the eye, and she said, “It was done! The Holy Father willed it. It was done, and you can tell your friends that it was done.” You will notice that the word “Russia” does not appear in the quote that Mahowald gets directly from Dr. Zugibe, besides the fact that there is an obvious interpolation of precisely what was said, since neither Dr. Zugibe’s words nor Sister Lucia words contained in the two above quotes are identical. Hence, we really can’t be certain what was asked of Sister Lucia, nor precisely what she answered.
Why is pointing out this discrepancy important? The fact that, in the Mahowald interview, Dr. Zugibe does not ask Sister Lucia if the consecration of “Russia” to the Immaculate Heart of Mary has been done allows for the interpretation that some kind of consecration was performed, but whether it was for the country of Russia, specifically and singly, is another matter altogether. (Note: At the end of my essay, you will see why this point is vitally important in our understanding of the whole Fatima message and the required consecration). In fact, you will notice that throughout Mahowald’s interview, neither Dr. Zugibe nor Sister Lucia make any reference to a “consecration of Russia” having been done. Each time the consecration is discussed, they refer to it in general terms. Dr. Zugibe does not mention Russia in his question, and Sister Lucia answers by thrice using the word “it,” rather than saying, “yes, the consecration of Russia was done. You can tell your friends that the consecration of Russia was done.” Why didn’t Mr. Mahowald pick up on this lacuna in the interview with Dr. Zugibe?
Now, if this were not such a controversial and highly-contested issue, I might not make such a big deal of Dr. Zugibe’s elimination of the word “Russia” from his question, or make a fuss over Sister Lucia referring to the consecration three times with the word “it.” But since the whole world is waiting for the truth of this matter, and since the evidence for the last 70 years has been so abused, and since Steve Mahowald has put the claims of the whole Traditional Movement on the line, then I will put on my Sherlock Holmes and Perry Mason hats, giving the most detailed and penetrating analysis my little brain will produce, and let the chips fall where they may.
In that light, I think the way Dr. Zugibe phrased his question is very telling. If someone put him up to this, what better way would there have been to fool the public into thinking that the question posed to Sister Lucia was referring to the consecration of Russia, as Our Lady has demanded it to be done, when in actuality it wasn’t? Irrespective of the discrepancy between the spiritdaily.org quote and Mahowald’s quote, here we have a medical investigator with enough letters after his name to fill an alphabet, yet he doesn’t even think, after hearing Sister Lucia’s reference to “it” three times, to follow up with the burning question:
I beg your indulgence, Sister Lucia, but are you saying that the consecration of Russia was performed in 1984 as specified by Our Lady since 1929? Or are you merely saying that the consecration of the “world” in 1984 is now interpreted to have sufficed for what Our Lady demanded for Russia? Please forgive me if it appears I am pestering you. I just want to make sure of what you are saying. Asking this pointed question should not make Sister Lucia feel uncomfortable. If she is as nice as Dr. Zugibe claims in his interview, she would have been more than willing to make this important matter very clear for him, and for the whole world. This is only reasonable to expect from her, since Sister Lucia has virtually made a trademark out of the word “Russia” from the time that she received the 1929 message from Our Lady. She has told at least three popes, beginning with Pius XI, and told numerous interviewers, that saying the word “Russia” was absolutely essential in the consecration demanded by Our Lady. So why does she persist in answering the question with the pronoun “it”? With all due respect to Sister Lucia, if the “pronoun” answer to a general question about “a” consecration was planned, the devil himself could not have framed it better, regardless whether Dr. Zugibe’s or Sister Lucia’s intentions are pure. Dr. Zugibe’s question and Sister Lucia’s answer not only confuse the matter, but their communication leaves a convenient degree of plausible deniability for both of them (and whoever else may be behind this interview) to claim that they never said the consecration of “Russia” was performed as specified by Our Lady, but only that a consecration was performed by John Paul II in 1984 that, in their mind, sufficed for a consecration of Russia.
Hole #3: “Picky, picky,” you say? Okay, let’s agree for the sake of argument with Dr. Zugibe’s question and Sister Lucia’s answer. This commits us to accepting that “the consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary...was done.” But among us Traditionalists, who of us that has denied that Russia was consecrated in 1984 have also denied that a consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was done in 1984? No one. We all admit that a consecration was done in 1984 – and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In fact, even Pius XII, in 1942, made a consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but he did so without mentioning the word “Russia,” and at that time Sister Lucia, in her own documented words, told him that the consecration, as Our Lady had ordered it, was not performed as specified. (I have extensive commentary on these events in my essay, pages 36ff, at www.catholicintl.com/eplogetics/fatima.asp).
So, on the one hand, as far as Dr. Zugibe’s question and Sister Lucia’s answer are concerned, they are indeed correct, and thus they probably cannot be impeached for telling falsehoods. Yes, “it” was done. On the other hand, that answer depends on what they mean by “it.” Unfortunately, Dr. Zugibe, for all his supposed investigative skills and forensic abilities, forgot to make this crucial point clear to Sister Lucia, or to us, his readers. This is in the face of the fact that Dr. Zugibe knew he was going to give this information to the public, for he told Sister Lucia he was planning to do so, and she gave him her blessing. But without the proper clarification, I’m afraid that his interview is worth very little in the ongoing discussion concerning Fatima.
Here’s one more piece of evidence to indicate the subterfuge that is possibly taking place. In an October 11, 1992 interview with Sister Lucia conducted by Antony Cardinal Padiyra, Bishop Francis Michaelappa, Fr. Francisco Pacheco, Carlos Everisto, and the Mother Prioress of Sister Lucia’s convent, Sister Lucia responded with the following answer regarding whether the consecration was performed:
Yes, Yes, Yes. The consecration was already partially done. Pope Pius XII made it in 1942, on October 31...but it lacked the union with all of the Bishops of the world, which Pope John Paul II finally managed to unite in 1984. Cardinal Padiyara then asked her:
“But did not Russia have to be specifically mentioned, and did not Our Lady say that?” To which Sister Lucia answered:
“The pope’s intention was Russia, when he said: ‘Those people...” in the text of the 1984 consecration.” Sorry to say, but these answers are so incongruous with Sister Lucia’s previous testimony that those who have been closely studying this drama for the past few decades must be filled with utter consternation. First, as we see again, in her opening remark Sister Lucia refers only to a “consecration,” not the “consecration of Russia,” giving us the distinct impression that she is purposely trying to avoid using the word “Russia,” as we will see below.
Second, contrary to what she reveals above, she must know that the consecration from Pius XII in 1942 was a consecration of the “world,” not Russia, upon which Sister Lucia was directed to tell the pope that, because he did not mention the word Russia, Our Lady came to her again in 1952 and requested that he do so. According to Sister Lucia’s previous testimony, Our Lady stated: “Make it known to the Holy Father that I am always awaiting the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without the consecration, Russia will not be able to convert, nor will the world have peace.” (Il Pellegrinaggio Della Meravigle, p. 440 (Rome, 1960)). Hence, the reason for the request was NOT because the bishops were not involved in 1942, but because “Russia” was not mentioned.
Third, records show that John Paul II’s consecration in 1984 did not have the participation of all the bishops of the world, nor the direct involvement of the few who did participate.
Probably sensing that Sister Lucia is being evasive, Cardinal Padiyara then asks her the obvious $64,000 question: “But did not Russia have to be specifically mentioned, and did not Our Lady say that?”
The answer that Sister Lucia gives is incredible. Although she does not deny that Russia has to be mentioned, very cleverly, for the first time in all her testimony on Fatima, she refers to the pope having only to possess the right “intentions.” Not only has Sister Lucia candidly admitted here that the pope did not use the word “Russia,” but she offers no explanation as to why his “intentions” cannot result in him actually saying the word “Russia,” as intended by Our Lady! Considering the numerous opinions she has given of late, it is rather curious why she is so reticent to tell us why the pope is powerless to say the word “Russia.” How hard can that word be to say?
The only thing she offers is that the phrase “those people” confirms the pope’s “intention.” But this explanation gets Sister Lucia into even more trouble, for the complete text containing the words “those people” is a text stating that the 1984 consecration was neither the consecration of Russia nor the pope’s intention that Russia be consecrated at that time (1984), but only an anticipation of a future consecration of Russia, some time after 1984, that either he or another pope would someday accomplish. As my essay states:
The March 1984 consecration was performed before 250,000 people at Rome. Prior to this, on December 8, 1983, John Paul wrote to all the bishops of world, asking them to join with him on the March 25th 1984 date to consecrate the world to Mary. Included in his request were the precise words he was going to say at the consecration. Immediately after reciting his scripted words at the consecration (“world” not “Russia”), suddenly, perhaps sensing that he must make at least some allusion to Russia, three hours later the Pope departs from his prepared script and states the following: “Enlighten especially those peoples of which You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and confiding.” These exact words were reported in L’Osservatore Romano. In Italian, the are: “Illumina speciolmente i popoli di cui tu aspetti la nostra consacrazione e il nostro affidamento.” They were also reported in the Italian Catholics bishop’s newspaper Avvenire. The pope’s addition to his prepared script reveals several important things: (1) It tells us that the pope himself realizes that a valid consecration of Russia, by either himself or his predecessors, was never accomplished, and that Our Lady is still awaiting to have it performed as specified; (2) It tells us that the pope is hesitant to even name Russia in a future consecration; (3) and that for some reason, he is not going to be the pope who will properly administer the consecration.
Hole #4: Still not convinced? Okay, let’s look at more of Dr. Zugibe’s interview, this time in reference to the credibility of his own testimony. On page 4 of Steve Mahowald’s interview, Dr. Zugibe is remarking about what Sr. Lucia told him. He states:
There was not even any kind of a gesture to say differently, in other words, she didn’t make any kind of gesture – she just said that it was properly done – and “You can tell your friends,” she said. (emphasis mine) Now, before I examine this statement, let’s see what Dr. Zugibe said later in the interview. On page 8 he states:
...she emphatically stated without hesitation, “It was done! The Holy Father willed it to be done and it was done and tell all your friends.” This clearly told all of us that it was done properly. (emphasis mine) First, notice the continual reference to the pronoun “it” as we have seen earlier in the interview, this time even Dr. Zugibe uses the pronoun. For some odd reason no one is referring specifically to the “consecration of Russia,” only to an unidentified or ambiguous event of consecration. Second, and more importantly, notice that Dr. Zugibe admits that his previous statement, recorded on page 4, says that Sister Lucia “said it was properly done,” yet on page 8 he says “This clearly told all of us that it was done properly.” The discrepancy between the two shows that Dr. Zugibe’s remark that the consecration was done properly was not said by Sr. Lucia, rather, it was merely an interpretation by Dr. Zugibe and his companions. Sr. Lucia never said the consecration was done properly, rather, she only affirmed that a consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was done. Not only does Dr. Zugibe’s obvious twisting of words suggest a possible agenda behind the interview, it also calls into question his ability to accurately judge the evidence placed before him. If Dr. Zugibe were on trial, a lawyer would have a field-day with him, possibly impeaching him as an expert witness for his mishandling of the evidence and injecting his own opinions into the matter.
Why is this important? If the goal for someone manipulating this interview and its publication is to deceive without being caught in a lie, then the interview Dr. Zugibe had with Sister Lucia would be the perfect alibi to get the job done. Dr. Zugibe leaves everyone with the impression that his interview is so thorough and circumspect that there are really no more questions that need to be asked of Sister Lucia. Seventy-two years of controversy has all apparently been settled in one short interview. But in reality, neither Dr. Zugibe nor Sister Lucia have said anything that we don’t already know. Granted, no one can accuse them of lying, since they haven’t lied. They just didn’t tell us the whole truth or anything new, but the reader THINKS that they did. That’s the important factor. As long as everyone THINKS they are referring to the consecration of “Russia” being performed as Our Lady specified (as opposed to the consecration of the “world” in 1984 that the Vatican claims suffices for a consecration of Russia), then all is well. It’s so good that it gets Steve Mahowald to question the whole Traditionalist Movement.
Of course, the whole proverbial sweater begins to unravel at this point. If one questions the Traditionalist Movement at large, then one wonders if one has been all wrong about the post-conciliar establishment, and Assisi, and the Jews having their own covenant not having to convert to Christianity, and Allah being the same as the Christian God, and Lutherans and Catholics agreeing on justification, and, well, all kinds of issues now come to the surface to be questioned. What better way for the devil to undermine Traditionalists than to make it appear, by some clever handling of words in an interview, that a consecration which has for the last six or so decades been denied by Sister Lucia as having occurred, has suddenly occurred? Amazingly, all this is accomplished without ever using the word “Russia” in the same sentence as the word “consecration.”
Hole #5: So how is this possible, you say? How could Sister Lucia, being the stalwart of the Faith and the spokeswoman for the Fatima apparitions all these years, suddenly turn out to be something less than we expected? Hold on to your judgments. Let’s try to look at Sister Lucia in the best light possible, for her sake. First, it is vitally important to realize that Sister Lucia is NOT an authority on whether the consecration of Russia has been done, nor whether it has been done properly. It’s amazing to me how much credibility and authority people give to her personal opinions, but the truth is that Sister Lucia has absolutely no more information or more authority to judge this issue than you or I. All Sister Lucia possesses is the information Our Lady told her many years ago, and that information has already been divulged to us. We know virtually everything that Sister Lucia knows, except the tail end of the Third Secret where it says “And in Portugal the faith will remain, but....etc...” (but we all have a pretty good idea of what that says, too, since those who have read the Third Secret have implied its contents). Other than that, Sister Lucia has no advantage. She is not a theologian. She is not a historian. She is not an expert investigator. She is not the Magisterium. She is just a nun with a memory of an apparition. Because of that, again, Sister Lucia has absolutely no authority to judge this issue. All she can tell us is that Our Lady demanded the consecration of Russia, performed by the Holy Father, in the presence of all the bishops of the world, and her job is done. Judgment of whether that demand has been fulfilled is not hers, but lays first with the evidence, and second with the authentic and binding Magisterium (not the personal opinions of certain prelates who themselves have said the present Vatican’s interpretation of events is not binding on Catholics). So, all this talk about “Sister Lucia said this,” or “Sister Lucia said that” is just that – talk. Dr. Zugibe’s interview, irrespective of all its flaws, is really superfluous.
But regardless of her lack of authority to judge this issue, how could Sister Lucia be so darned sure of herself? Let’s look at this in two ways. First, with the evidence we have gathered thus far, can we really be certain that Sister Lucia is so sure of herself? Put yourself in her place. If you were so sure that the consecration of Russia was finally performed as specified by Our Lady in 1929, a consecration for which you had been clamoring to be completed for over sixty years, don’t you think you would have indicated in your interview – an interview you knew the whole world would hear very shortly – that indeed the consecration of “Russia,” not just “a consecration” or “it” was done? Funny thing is, in the various times since 1989 where it is reported that Sister Lucia said the “consecration was done,” she NEVER mentions the word “Russia” in the same sentence, or that it was done to the specifications Our Lady demanded in 1929, either in Zugibe’s interview or other supposed interviews or written notes.
Second, from what sources could Sister Lucia draw in order to be certain about her convictions regarding the consecration being completed? There are only three sources: (1) a message from heaven itself, (2) her own personal opinion, or (3) information (or misinformation) from Vatican prelates, along with their pressure and/or demands for her compliance under threat of her requirement to be “obedient” to her superiors.
As for #2, (i.e., her own personal opinion), I have already stated above that Sister Lucia’s opinion on whether the consecration was done as specified is really of little value. She is a cloistered nun, far away from the world’s troubles. She probably doesn’t know half of what has been occurring behind the scenes at the Vatican for the last forty or so years. She only knows what is told to her. In any case, no one has given her the absolute authority to make such judgments.
As for #1, the fact is that Sister Lucia, for all her opinions, has never stated that heaven has given any word, let alone a confirmation, about the validity and effect of the 1984 consecration. The last voice from heaven she heard was in 1952, I believe, and that was only, ironically enough, a message from Our Lady to tell Pius XII he needed to make the consecration of “Russia,” not the “world” as he tried in 1942. (He eventually did use the name “Russia” in the 1952 consecration, but he didn’t have the bishops participate. Naturally, if the present Vatican thought that in 1952 Pius XII performed a “proper” consecration, we would not be having this discussion right now, since there would have been no consecration needed in 1984). If heaven had given additional information to Sister Lucia, we also would not be having this discussion right now, since a voice from heaven would quell the controversy immediately.
But now we come to #3 (i.e., information – or misinformation – from Vatican officials, along with their pressure and/or demands for Sr. Lucia’s compliance under threat of her requirement to be “obedient” to her superiors). It is well known that Sister Lucia has been very obedient to her superiors throughout her life. If they told her to talk, she talked. If they told her to keep silent, she kept silent. Although from one perspective we can judge her obedience as admirable, from another perspective it can be the telling-sign which reveals the real reason for her present disposition. More specifically, what would make a devout person such as Sister Lucia suddenly change her opinion in the face of almost ten years of documented evidence in the 1980s in which she affirms that the consecration of Russia had NOT been done, or done properly? If Sister Lucia is innocent in this matter (which I am willing to grant her) I can think of only one thing that would cause such an abrupt reversal of fortune – the modernist Vatican prelates who have been so driven to convince the world that the consecration has been accomplished have used their red hats and persuasive techniques to convince Sister Lucia that the 1984 consecration of the “world” has sufficed to fulfill Our Lady’s demand for the consecration of Russia.
If you don’t believe that is possible, then you simply don’t know the power and intrigue of the present bureaucrats at the Vatican. You can be rest assured that if they required Sister Lucia, under threat of discipline, to believe that the consecration of 1984 sufficed, then as far as Sister Lucia and her commitment to obedience is concerned, it sufficed. Up until 1989 they did not pressure her, canonically speaking, to accept their version of the 1984 consecration. It is no coincidence, then, that only after 1989 does Sister Lucia seem to be changing her mind about whether the consecration was performed as specified by Our Lady. Since the Vatican bureaucrats could convince John Paul II to eliminate the word “Russia” from the consecration due to “political” reasons, and likewise convince him that the consecration of the “world” would suffice for what Our Lady demanded (see my paper, pages 36ff), certainly they could convince, and pressure, Sister Lucia to believe the same. These men are experts at what they do, and they will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals. As for pressure, one only need to review how they have hounded Fr. Nicholas Gruner for the last 40 years in order to know their true motives and devices. Presently, the Vatican is infested with liberal, heterodox prelates who have one goal in mind – advancing their own agenda of worldly influence and power. When needed, they can turn on the charm and appear sweet and endearing. If resisted, they can be just as mean and threatening, as long as they get their pound of flesh. For Sister Lucia, I’m sure they were sweet and endearing. I’m sure they brought in their most gifted and talented men to persuade her, sprinkled with reminding her of her obligation to be obedient to her superiors. Not only did they convince her, but they did so by making her impeach her own previous testimony. How clever they are. She didn’t stand a chance against these men. Like Satan did to Eve in the Garden, they made their lie sound like the truth, and thus convinced Sister Lucia that God really didn’t say “Russia,” for He knows that if you just say the word “world,” we will become as God, knowing good and evil.
Hole #6: There is another important point about the above quote from Dr. Zugibe that is relevant. Mr. Mahowald asks Dr. Zugibe: “did Sr. Lucia indicate the involvement of the bishops in the consecration?” To which Dr. Zugibe answers:
No. The exact protocol involving the Bishops was not discussed. This was not important because she emphatically stated without hesitation, “It was done. The Holy Father willed it to be done and it was done and tell your friends.” This clearly told all of us that it was done properly. Regardless of whether or not the issue of the bishops’ involvement in the consecration was discussed, notice how quickly Dr. Zugibe dismisses its importance, almost as if he has an agenda to sweep the issue under the rug. Interjecting his own opinions, once again, into the interview, Dr. Zugibe says that the issue of the bishops’ participation “was not important.” How does he know it “was not important”?? If he is such a good investigator, why didn’t he scrutinize Sister Lucia’s words a little more closely and ask, for example,
But Sister Lucia, forgive me for my forwardness, but how do we reconcile your present testimony that the consecration was done, and done properly, with the fact that the bishops of the world did not participate directly with the pope? Did you not dismiss Pius XII’s 1952 consecration of Russia by citing that he did not involve the bishops? But no, Dr. Zugibe offers no such penetrating questions. This is like Dan Rather interviewing Hilary Clinton – the questions are designed not to probe too deeply. In fact, as his own description of the anticipation of his meeting with Sister Lucia reveals, Dr. Zugibe was more or less infatuated with the fact that he was going to meet the famed Fatima seer, and as a result he was all too eager to accept every word she said as gospel. The fact remains that the very two things Sister Lucia previously said were an absolute necessity in order to have a proper consecration (viz., (1) the name of Russia must be mentioned, and (2) the bishops of the world must participate in the consecration), Dr. Zugibe casually dismisses as “not important” matters to be discussed! How he expects this interview to be convincing to any traditional Catholic who has studied this issue longer than Dr. Zugibe can lay claim, is anyone’s guess.
Hole #7: Mr. Mahowald then tries to tie all the loose ends together by taking a second look at the state of Russia, seeking to convince us that the Traditionalist Movement’s expectations of the conversion of Russia have all been askew. Poor Traditionalists. They were all expecting a real conversion of souls to the Catholic faith, like the many other times that Our Lady has promised and fulfilled such prophecies of conversion. As my essay points out:
On May 13, 1931, Our Lady gave evidence of what to expect from a faithfully performed consecration. On that date, in the presence of 300,000 Catholics at Fatima, the bishops of Portugal consecrated their nation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Their motive was to protect Portugal from the threat of communism that was sweeping Europe. The Red Army had already enveloped Spain, their closest neighbor. Miraculously, in a few short years after the consecration, the Portugese people experienced an astounding change. In less than ten years, the number of religious vocations quadrupled. Catholic radio, a Catholic press, Catholic pilgrimages and spiritual retreats dotted the landscape as never before. The country was totally transformed, to say the least. Antonia Salazar took the reigns of government in 1933 and inaugurated a Catholic social movement unprecedented in recent history, wherein government and Catholic ideals were integrated at the highest levels. The nuclear family was restored to its inherent value. Divorce was outlawed. By 1960, over 90% of all Portugal’s marriages were canonical. Salazar’s efforts were so extraordinary that he received personal congratulations from Pius XII for producing a model country for the world to follow. And that’s not all. While countries around them were being swallowed up by Nazism and Communism, Portugal was miraculously spared the effects both of the Spanish Civil War and any repercussions of World War II. On February 6, 1939, Sister Lucia wrote to her bishop in Portugal, Monsignor da Silva, stating: “...in this horrible war [World War II], Portugal would be spared because of the national consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary made by the bishops” (The Whole Truth About Fatima, p. 428). At about the same time, Sister Lucia wrote to Pius XII and told him that, had the other nations done likewise, they would have enjoyed the same blessings as Portugal. Similarly, after the apparition of Our Lady at Guadalupe to Juan Diego, in less than ten years, nine million Aztecs turned from paganism to Christianity. So why wouldn’t we expect a similar occurrence for an even greater prophecy of conversion from the Fatima revelations? But now we are told by Mr. Mahowald that such an expectation is “the wrong view.” He first tries to make headway by claiming that “there was no time limit given by Our Lady as to when Russia will be converted, only that she will.” Like we haven’t heard this before? The only thing Mr. Mahowald really tells us by this conjecture is that he admits Russia hasn’t been converted!
Try as he may, Mr. Mahowald then attempts to convince us with a quote from Vladimir Feodorov, which purports to document all the so-called “freedoms” Russians are now enjoying to practice their “religion.” Here he engages in selective news editing. He conveniently forgets such recent news items as the Russian government, prompted by the Russian Orthodox Church, just a couple of years ago told the pope to “stay out of Russia,” and refused to renew the licenses of Catholic parishes all over Russia? In Russia today, almost 20 years after the 1984 consecration, there are hardly any more Catholics than there were in 1917 when Our Lady first appeared at Fatima. There are many similar stories I could reveal. Please see my essay for details.
Oh, but there is one other possibility to explain Mr. Mahowald’s present viewpoint. Perhaps in line with the ecumenists at the Vatican, Mr. Mahowald is now convinced that the Russian Orthodox Church is the answer to the “conversion of Russia,” for that is what is implied in his quote from Feodorov, as he writes:
The majority of Russians remain loyal to the traditional Russian Orthodox Church and cling to a notion of the place of the church in the state which goes back to the times before the 1917 revolution. Of the two paragraphs Mr. Mahowald quotes from Feodorov, you won’t find one reference to “Catholicism” in Russia. That’s because Mr. Mahowald knows there is virtually none there. If there was, he would have been shouting it from the housetops as a fulfillment of the “consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” Instead, Mr. Mahowald has suddenly turned into an ecumenist, taking the party line from the Vatican that one religion is just as good as another, just as long as we all strive toward God and world peace. Perhaps there is more to Mr. Mahowald’s “questioning” of Traditionalism than just in-fighting over Fatima. He appears to have already turned the corner, looking for evidence of the consecration in all the wrong places.
Hole #8: Unfortunately, Sister Lucia’s answer to this same question is just as unconvincing. If you look closely, you will see the fingerprints of the Vatican’s “gentle persuasion” all over it. As Mr. Mahowald asks about the meaning of the “peace” which was promised once Russia was converted, Dr Zugibe answers:
I asked about that...You know, I said, you take a situation like Russia. Russia has prostitution, and the criminal aspect of things there is so prominent, and everything else. If Russia was consecrated, why? You know what they answered?....The answer was this: they said, that the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary gave people the right to free will, to make their own choice. In other words, it opened it up so that they could go to church, they could go to confession, whereas before they were under a regime where there was only a fear of going to church, a fear of religion. The consecration opened this up so that they were free to believe, and that no matter in what country, no matter wherever you are, you are free – you have the free will to save your soul – to do what you want...Not a great or big holiness that you could see – people have the wrong impression of that. Again, let’s take this apart, line by line. First, notice that in relaying this answer, Dr. Zugibe says that it came from “they.” Who are “they”? Apparently “they” are the nuns with whom Sister Lucia lives, but “they” have nothing to do with the Fatima visions or their interpretation, so why is Dr. Zugibe citing them? Initially I was under the impression from reading Dr. Zugibe’s interview that he was getting all this information only from Sister Lucia, but now it seems that we are surrounded by a whole host of opinionated people giving us their take on what the “conversion of Russia” really means.
Second, Dr Zugibe admits he is puzzled as to how the conversion of Russia could have taken place when indeed there is so much “prostitution and the criminal aspect of things” being so “prominent” in Russia today. As he hears from Sister Lucia the answer that the “conversion” really means “free will,” it doesn’t seem to bother Dr. Zugibe that the so-called “free will” of the Russian people has resulted in more “prostitution” and “criminal aspects” than Russia ever experienced under Lenin and Stalin! Statistics show that the moral climate in Russia, if that is the standard Dr. Zugibe insists on using, far exceeds in debauchery what existed under the communists. In essence, we are being told that the “conversion of Russia” has resulted in more sin and evil in the Russian population than they ever experienced under previous administrations.
Conversely, the idea that Russian Christianity could flourish underground in the midst of repression should come as no surprise to us. In the early years of Christianity under the pre-Constantine Roman Empire, many Christians were confined to the catacombs and the remotest parts of the world, but the Christian faith spread like wildfire from those regions. There is an old saying: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” Whenever Christians are persecuted their faith is usually its strongest and fastest growing. Conversely, it is usually too much “freedom” that allows malaise and temptation to seep in, which is precisely what we see in much of North American and European Catholicism today – too much freedom “to do anything you want,” as Dr. Zugibe put it so well.
All one need do to prove my above point is look very closely at the statistics of abortion, pornography, contraception, alcoholism, Satanism, drug abuse, etc., coming out of Russia today compared to what it was occurring decades earlier (To see the actual statistics, see my essay, pages 1-7, at www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/fatima.asp). One will see that if “free will” is the answer to the “conversion of Russia,” then Our Lady has apparently deceived us into thinking that things were really going to change in Russia when in actuality they weren’t. The fact is, however, Our Lady has not deceived us. As my paper points out, each time Our Lady has used the word “conversion” in this and other apparitions and messages she has meant one thing, and one thing only – the repentance of sinners from their wicked lives into the arms of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. (See pages 2-3 of my essay).
Our Lady did not promise or direct us to look for the “fall of communism” as a fulfillment of obedience to her requests. She promised and directed us to a spiritual conversion of Russia. What good is a change in political ideology (e.g., a change to Socialism or Capitalism) when the practice of sin in each of those ideologies is the same or even more than the Russian people experienced under communism? Communism can “fall” all it wants, but if the people’s hearts remain unconverted then Our Lady’s promises have not been fulfilled, not to mention the fact that communism is still alive and well in many major countries of the world, and perhaps just under disguise in Russia.
The only saving grace for Sister Lucia’s present understanding is that perhaps the consecration of the “world” in 1984 did at least some good, just as Sister Lucia said of Pope Pius XII’s consecration of the world in 1942. As she confided to him in a revelation from Our Lady, that consecration, incomplete though it was, led to the end of WWII, just as the 1984 consecration may have led to the downfall of communism. (NB: Notice that heaven gave the interpretation in 1942, not Sister Lucia). But we are not interested in partial fulfillments, and that is not what Our Lady directed us to seek. She said “conversion of sinners,” not political revival. As long as people side-step this issue and claim that Russia was consecrated in 1984, we leave ourselves open to the complete reversal of whatever good came from the 1984 consecration. God does not work halfway, nor is He mocked. When His orders are obeyed we see results. Unfortunately, halfway results are the result of halfway obedience, which is the case with the 1984 consecration and the results we see today. No one fools God.
Hole #9: Dr. Zugibe then tries to convince us that “free will” is the answer to the “conversion of Russia” by offering what appears to him to be a logical argument. He writes that the conversion is: “Not a great or big holiness that you could see – people have the wrong impression of that.” Not only is Dr. Zugibe once again injecting his own opinion into what Sister Lucia said, but he makes the illogical claim that conversion is not something “you could see.” Well then, how does Dr. Zugibe explain that he is able to “see” the “free will” of the Russian people so visibly, as he purports to witness the barriers of religious freedom being taken out of Russia? Isn’t the fall of communism a visible reality that he “sees” happening? Was not the breaking down of the Berlin Wall in 1989 a physical happening he saw with his own eyes? Whether he wants to admit it or not, Dr. Zugibe is just as much dependent on visible evidence for his view as he purports we are for our view. Both of us are looking for some degree of physical fulfillment. The problem is, Dr. Zugibe’s fulfillment results in more “freedom” for the proliferation of sin and evil in Russia than that nation ever had under the communists, while ours is looking for a true conversion from sin and evil. Take your pick, Mr. Mahowald.
Let’s ask ourselves an honest question: Did Our Lady promise “free will” as the meaning of “conversion” in this or her other apparitions, whether recent or remote? I don’t know one place, in all her apparitions and messages, that she promised “free will” as the meaning and result of “conversion,” not one. In fact, it would be superfluous for her to do so. God would never taken away man’s free will. Free choice will exist as long as man exists. To limit it or take it away would disrupt the whole fabric of the creation.
I’ll tell you what I think the reference to “free will” as “conversion” sounds like. It sounds like the same ecumenical jargon we have been hearing from the liberal prelates for the past few decades. The only thing that matters to them is freedom and peace. Forget about converting people to Catholicism. For them that gospel is from the stone age. Everyone can find God in their own way, in their own religion. Get with it people. Freedom is the answer. As Dr. Zugibe says,
The consecration opened this up so that they were free to believe, and that no matter in what country, no matter wherever you are, you are free – you have the free will to save your soul – to do what you want...Over there, they were not allowed to have the same freedom of religion – but this opened up a freedom of religion where they can make their own free choice. Dr. Zugibe sounds like a good French revolutionary or American patriot. As long as you have “freedom of religion” you have it all – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Although some people certainly use civil freedom to practice Catholicism, there is a strong undercurrent throughout the whole Mahowald interview that the participants are not so much concerned about Catholicism in Russia as they are about seeing the freedom of “religion,” which, as we know, can refer to any religion, especially in today’s ecumenical climate. Their view sounds like a page right out of the book of Cardinals Kasper, Cassidy, Willebrands, Suenens, Keeler and many others following the ecumenical juggernaut of the post-conciliar Church. No doubt these prelates have fed the “free will” line to Sister Lucia so that she now has at her disposal the “correct” theological perspective from which to judge whether the consecration was done to Our Lady’s specifications, and also to interpret what is really meant by the word “conversion.” They trained her right. Not only her, but “they” who helped answer the question for Dr Zugibe.
As clever as these hierarchs tried to be in educating Sister Lucia to their ecumenical protocol, the basic theological problem with her answer is that it assumes God’s promise to convert sinners from evil is somehow at odds with man’s free will. In other words, her answer (or shall we say, the answer given to her) implies that when God promises that people will convert if certain commands of His are obeyed, that God must drag these men to Himself, against their free will, whether they like it or not. But that is not the case at all. God’s promises of conversion and man’s free will work together. Even the Catechism admits as much. In paragraph 600 it states:
“To God all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace.” As He did at Fatima, it is no great feat for God to foresee, predestine and prophesy a conversion of sinners, yet at the same time preserve their free will. If anyone doubts this, give a quick read to the book of Jonah and see how God’s promise to convert the city of Nineveh works, part and parcel, with the Ninevite’s free will to respond to Jonah’s message that God will destroy them in forty days unless they repent. Or read any of the prophecies in the Old Testament that predict a conversion of Gentiles in the New Testament, at the same time the New Testament upholds the fact that each and everyone of them must come to Christ by their free will.
Hole #10: Lastly, if “free will” is the answer to the conversion of Russia, why didn’t Sister Lucia mention this in the seventy years previous to this interview? Why did she let the controversy brew into an unrepairable split right down the middle of the Church if, indeed, the remedy was right at our fingertips? For over seventy years she keeps the answer locked up in her mind and then decides to give it to a perfect stranger who somehow gets past everyone else wishing for an interview? This tells us that, either the Vatican has so thoroughly educated Sister Lucia to the age of ecumenism, and/or she is taking on far too much theological responsibility for a cloistered nun of ninety-five years old. Heaven certainly didn’t give her the answer of “free will.” Consequently, we must realize that Sister Lucia is a visionary, not a theologian, not a historian. She is only to be respected and honored insofar as she reveals precisely what Our Lady wanted to tell the world. Outside of that realm, Sister Lucia has no authority or prestige, and indeed, it is wrong of those who force her to be on such a pedestal, Dr. Zugibe and Steven Mahowald included.
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
I'd make a good editor. I can distill his private judgement protestantism to two words.
I follow the Living Magisterium. Is that an example of protestantism to you?
Some of us follow the Divinely-constitued Living Magisterium, others follow the opposition. C'est la vie.
Of course you would. You label anyone who disagrees with your perverted defense of blind obedience as "schismatics".
No wonder you would like to see the next Pope discontinue the Indult, you’ve bought into the New Order hook, line and sinker.
Have you kissed your Koran today?
Thank you for posting this article.
Very clever!!! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.